I am finding that most of my designs seem to use "Victory Points" as the primary scoring system. ie, "Do this action, receive this many VPs; at the end, the winner is the one with the most VPs". I suspect that a big portion of this is that many of the games I play work in this way. What is it about VPs that makes it such a popular way of deciding a victor? My own suspicion is that it
Getting away from Victory Points
A version of VPs that I find clever is the "most of the least" type of thing that Tigris & Eurphrates and Kanaloa have, where you receive several different kinds of VPs and having the more of the least type of VPs is the best (that is, if you have 10 A points, 8 B points, and 11 C points then B is where you have the least: do you have more B points than all of the other players, or alternately is 8 the highest number of least points?). Kanaloa has the same thing but with a clever little mechanism where you have to have more of a certain type of VP than anything else, but it
Settlers combines both mechanics! In Settlers you have to be the first one to obtain 10 vp. That
Quote:
08-05-2003 at 19:30, jwarrend wrote:
What is it about VPs that makes it such a popular way of deciding a victor? My own suspicion is that it
Another thought! Aren
We
A set number of weeks or months has a couple of advantages. One is that it can mimic a television "season," a mechanic that will tie nicely into the theme, not only because of the similarity in time-based concepts but also because that
I am an advocate of victory points. One of the best qualities, Scurra has already mentioned: victory points is something that can easily be fine tuned. After you